Teaching Computer Mouse Skills to Students with Severe Autism

Abstract

This presentation went with the thesis for my second master's degree. I received an M.S. Educational Technology Specialist in 2007 from New York Institute of Technology. I compared two different types of software that could be used to teach students with severe autism to click a mouse button. At the time, teachers were required to adapt general education materials to the needs of students in special education. My research showed that students learned better using software that was specifically designed for their developmental level and educational needs. After this study, I was given more freedom to use software that was specifically designed for the needs of students with significant disabilities. (My first Master's Degree was an M.S. Edu. in Special Education: Severe and Multiple Disabilities at Hunter College, N.Y.C.)

Full text

Title:
Teaching Computer Mouse Skills
to Students with
Autism and Developmental Delays
Jeanne Stork
April 10, 2007
New York Institute of Technology
M.S. Educational Technology Specialist
Master’s Thesis Presentation
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
© Jeanne E. Stork

Table of Contents
vIntroduction
ØBackground Information
ØReview of Literature (5 pages)
ØHypothesis: Specialized Software Works
vMethod
ØSetting
ØParticipants
ØAssessment Instruments
ØMaterials
ØApparatus
ØResearch Design (2 pages)
ØProcedure
ØData Collection Plan
ØAction Time Table

Table of Contents
vResults
ØTables and Graphs (7 pages)
ØSurveys (4 pages)
ØTeacher Interviews
ØAnalysis (2 pages)
vDiscussion
ØImportant Observations
ØOutcomes (2 pages)
vConclusions
ØHypothesis Result
ØImplementation
ØDissemination
ØPossible Future Improvements
ØDiscoveries
vReferences (3 pages)
vAcknowledgements

vIntroduction
ØBackground Information
»Computer mouse skills increase independence,
available software, productivity, and speed.
»Some students with autism and developmental
disabilities have difficulty learning to use the
mouse.
»For several years exposing all students to the
same materials as their peers was required.
»Using specialized resources for students with
disabilities is, once again, becoming accepted.

vIntroduction
ØReview of Literature
»Introduction: Teaching Computer Skills
>Technology positively impacts students
with disabilities.
>Clearly defined research based best
practices needed.
>Link between technologies and teaching
techniques needed.
>Students’ cognitive abilities need to be
considered.
•Germann, Broida, Kaufman, Broida, & Thompson, 2001;
Hasselbring, 2001; Langone, Clees, Rieber, & Matzko, 2003;
Wehmeyer, Smith, Palmer, & Davis, 2004

vIntroduction
ØReview of Literature
»Teaching Input Devices
>College computer course began with
“Mouse Basics.”
>The mouse is the most effective device for
most children.
>Single switch interfaces help a few students
with disabilities.
>Students learn devices best with software
free of language.
•Baxter, 1996; Johnston, 2003; Lane & Ziviani, 1997; Pugliese,
2002a; Romeo, Edwards, McNamara, Walker, & Ziguras 2003

vIntroduction
ØReview of Literature
»Teaching Software
>Software too difficult -- Students frustrated
and lose interest
>Software too easy -- Students do not learn
new information
>Software customized for students --
Attending skills increase
>Systematic guidance helps students learn.
>Children benefit from structured computer
use.
•Ashton, 2001; Carlson & White, 1998; Liu, 1996

vIntroduction
ØReview of Literature
»Generalizing Computer Skills
>Computers can help students generalize:
§Communication skills
§Academic skills
§Turn taking
§Sharing
§Cooperative play
>Difficulty should be increased gradually.
•Hetzroni & Shalem, 2005; Kelly, Green, & Sidman, 1998; Hobbs,
Bruch, Sanko, & Astolfi, 2001; Kimball, Kinney, Taylor, &
Stromer, 2003; Lau, 2000

vIntroduction
ØReview of Literature
»Conclusion: Assessing Computer Skills
>Technologies & software should be based on
assessment.
>Many schools in NYC DOE District 75 use the
Stages assessment.
>Stage One: Learn input device in cause &
effect activities.
>Return to Stage One for new input device.
>Return to Stage One if difficulty with device.
•Dissinger, 2003; Hutinger, 1998; Pugliese (2000, 2001, 2002a,
2002b, & 2003)

vIntroduction
ØHypothesis:
It is hypothesized that elementary school
students with both autism and developmental
delays will demonstrate greater progress on an
assessment of computer mouse skills if they use
specialized training applications than if they
use simple academic applications.

ØSetting
»District 75 school PS 138 M
»In general education school PS 30
»Computer lab in PS 138 M at PS 30
»Students use assigned computers
»One student per computer
»At least one paraprofessional present
vMethod

vMethod
ØParticipants
»New York City Students
»14 Students -- control/treatment: 7 each
»Have autism and developmental delays
»Ages 5 through 11
»Cannot effectively control mouse

ØAssessment Instruments
»Cognitive (Achievement): Stages Assessment
>Press and Hold
>Press and Release
»Behavioral: Stages Observation Form
>Attending Skills
>Being Gentle
»Affective: Surveys of Computer Attitudes
>Students
>Paraprofessionals
>Teachers
»Qualitative: Interviews of Teachers
>Expectations of Teachers
>Observations of Teachers
vMethod

ØMaterials
»Software
>Stages computer assessment (Attainment)
Assessment for students with severe disabilities
>Children’s Switch Progression (R J Cooper)
Teaches basic switch or mouse button skills
>Early & Advanced Switch Games (R J Cooper)
Teaches a wide variety switch/mouse button skills
»General Supplies
>Printer with ink and paper
>Stages behavioral observation forms
>Pens and paper
>Communication boards for nonverbal students
vMethod

ØApparatus
»iMac G3 computers
»Macintosh G4 mini-towers
»15” – 17” monitors
»Macintosh OS 9.2
»One button computer mice
»Two button mice -- both single clicks
»Single switch input (for two students who
cannot isolate the mouse button)
vMethod

ØResearch Design
»School Based Action Research
>Gather data about how PS138M students with
autism can better learn to use computers.
>Improve computer instruction with this data.
»Treatment Group receives specialized mouse
training software
»Control Group receives adapted academic
software (as is generally required)
>Adapted to bypass quizzes
>Current practice: expose students to regular
software, adapting as needed
»Independent Variable: type of software
»Dependent Variable: student progress
vMethod

ØResearch Design
»Mixed Quantitative and Qualitative
»Imperfect Experimental Design
>Only PS 138 M students (dashed line)
>Diagnosed with autism
>Ages 5 through 10
>Do not effectively use computer mouse
>Results not generalized to larger population of
students with autism
>Students randomly assigned to groups
»R O X O
------------
R O O
»School Based Action Research
vMethod

ØProcedure
»14 students from 6 classes
»In computer lab once a week
»During computer class
»Researcher assigns software
»Trainers: researcher and paraprofessionals
»1 or 2 students per trainer
»Treatment Group receives specialized mouse
training software
»Control Group receives academic software (as
generally required)
»Independent Variable: type of software
»Dependent Variable: student progress
vMethod

ØData Collection Plan
»Cognitive (Achievement)
>Stages Assessment: Stage One (cause and effect)
pretest / posttest
»Behavioral
>Stages Observational forms (pre/posttest)
»Affective (Surveys)
>Student Survey
>Paraprofessional Survey
>Teacher Survey
»Interview (Qualitative)
>Teacher expectations and observations
vMethod

ØAction Time Table
»November 2006
>All assessments given
>Students divided into groups
>Paraprofessionals trained
>Software assigned
»December 2006 –March 2007
>Students use assigned software
»Late March 2007
>All assessments repeated
»April 2007
>Pretests and posttests compared
>Final results presented
vMethod

ØTables and Graphs
»Scores: lower numbers = more assistance
»Students with 1 –3 in all areas chosen
»Press & Hold / Release = Achievement
»Looking & Gentle = Behavior
»Name codes are pseudonyms (not related to
real names in any way)
»Student Data Legend:
T = Treatment Group
C = Control Group
1 = Resists Assistance
2 = Allows Assistance
3 = Physical Prompt
4 = Verbal/Gesture Prompt
5 = Independence
vResults

Student Press & Hold Press & Release Look at Screen Gentle w/ Mouse
AN (C) 1 /2 /11/2 /12/3 /12/2 /0
AS (T) 2/ 3 /12/3 /13/4 /12/3 /1
BR (T) 1/3 /21/3 /22/4 /21/2 /1
CH (C) 2/2/0 2/2 /03/3 /02/3 /1
GE (C) 3/3 /02/3 /13/3 /02/3 /1
IB (C) 1/2 /11/2 /12/3 /11/ 1 /0
JA (T) 2/3 /11/2 /12/3 /12/3 /1
PE (T) 1/2 /11/2 /11/3 /21/2 /1
PI (C) 2/1 /-1 1/1 /01/ 1 /01/ 1 /0
RO (T) 2/3 /11/2 /12/4 /22/3 /1
RY (T) 2/4 /22/3 /12/4 /22/4 /2
SN (C) 3 /3 /02 /3 /13/4 /12/3 /1
TA (T) 1/4 /31/3 /23/4/13/4 /1
WE (C) 1/2 /11/2 /12/3 /12/2/0
vResults
ØTables and Graphs
»1st # Pretest /2nd # Posttest /3rd # Improvement

vResults
ØTables and Graphs

vResults
ØTables and Graphs
»Comparison of Mean Averages
»Treatment group improved more than Control

vResults
ØTables and Graphs
»Student Improvement Graph
>All improvement scores of 2 or 3 belong to Treatment Group
>All areas of no or negative improvement in Control Group
>Most improved: One treatment student’s “Press and Hold”
>All areas: Treatment Group improved more

vResults
Press
& Hold
Press &
Release
Look at
Screen
Gentle w/
Mouse
Total
Improvement
Control Mean 0.2857 0.7143 0.5714 0.4286 0.5
Control Standard
Deviation
0.7559 0.488 0.5345 0.5345 0.3819
Treatment Mean 1.5714 1.2857 1.5714 1.1429 1.3929
Treatment
Standard Deviation
0.7868 0.488 0.5345 0.378 0.3493
ØTables and Graphs
»Improvement Data Comparison Chart
>All areas: Treatment Group improved more
>Treatment Group’s Total Improvement mean was
almost three times Control Group’s

ØTables and Graphs
»Probability of results being random
>T Test used to determine probability
>Treatment Group’s improvement more significant
than Control Group’s improvement
>Comparison: Treatment Group’s gain verses Control
Group’s gain statistically significant
Press &
Hold
Press &
Release
Look at
Screen
Gentle w/
Mouse
Mean
Average
Control Pretest vs.
Control Posttest
t -0.6667
df 12
p 0.5176
t -2.1651
df 12
p 0.0512
t -1.2865
df 12
p 0.2225
t -1.1078
df 12
p 0.2896
t -1.4239
df 12
p 0.1799
Treatment Pretest vs.
Treatment Posttest
t -4.7631
df 12
p 0.0005
t -4.7001
df 12
p 0.0005
t -4.9193
df 12
p 0.0004
t -2.8284
Df 12
p 0.0152
t -5.2909
df 12
p 0.0002
Control Improve vs.
Treatment Improve
t -3.1177
df 12
p 0.0089
t -0.8165
df 12
p 0.0489
t -3.5
df 12
p 0.0044
t -2.8869
df 12
p 0.0137
t -4.5644
df 12
p 0.0006
vResults

vResults
ØSurveys
»Student Computer Attitudes
>8 students answered, with visual aids
>“Agree” is most common.
>All students liked games with movies and music.
>Preferences not assessed -- concept too difficult.
>Uncertain if 3 students understood the concepts
Weight 3 2 1
I like: Agree Neutral Disagree Weighted Sum Mean Average
computer class. 6 1 1 21 2.6
using mouse. 4 2 2 18 2.2
using switch. 3 2 3 16 2
movies & music. 8 0 0 24 3
letters & numbers. 2 3 3 15 1.9
pictures w/ sounds. 4 4 0 20 2.5
changing games. 3 3 2 17 2.1
one game. 4 1 3 17 2.1
new games. 2 2 4 14 1.7
Total Responses 36 18 18

vResults
ØSurveys
»Paraprofessionals: Computer & Autism
>Software: academic vs. developmental: agree and
disagree do not balance
>More paras prefer developmental software
Weight Given to Category 5 4 3 2 1
Strong
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strong
Disagree
Weighted
Sum
Mean
Average
repetition increase learning 2 3 3 2 0 35 3.5
difficulty generalizing 2 4 2 2 0 36 3.6
variety increase generalize 3 4 2 1 0 39 3.9
academic software best 1 2 4 2 1 30 3.0
developmental software best 3 3 2 2 0 37 3.7
pressure: academics priority 1 4 4 2 0 37 3.7
mouse better to learn 3 3 5 0 0 42 4.4
switch can lead to mouse 3 3 3 0 1 37 3.7
all can learn mouse 2 2 3 3 0 33 3.3
Number of Responses 20 28 28 14 2

vResults
ØSurveys
»Teachers: Computer & Autism
>Software: academic vs. developmental: agree and
disagree close to balancing
>More teachers prefer developmental software
Weight Given to Category 5 4 3 2 1
Strong
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strong
Disagree
Weighted
Sum
Mean
Average
repetition increase learning
5 5 0 0 0 45 4.5
difficulty generalizing
4 5 1 0 0 43 4.3
variety increase generalize
5 3 2 0 0 43 4.3
academic software best
2 1 1 2 4 25 2.5
developmental software best
3 3 1 2 1 35 3.5
pressure: academics priority
3 3 1 2 1 35 3.5
mouse better to learn
3 3 1 2 1 35 3.5
switch can lead to mouse
4 2 1 2 1 36 3.6
all can learn mouse
2 3 1 1 3 30 3.0
Number of Responses
32 27 910 12

ØSurvey
»Teacher Versus Paraprofessional
>19 fewer neutral teacher responses than
paraprofessionals
>10 more strongly disagrees teacher
responses than paraprofessionals
>12 more strongly agrees teacher responses
than paraprofessionals
>Both teachers and paraprofessionals tend to
agree with questions
>Teachers appear to be more strongly
opinionated than paraprofessionals.
vResults

ØTeacher Interviews
»Three teachers interviewed
»Perceive more pressure to teach academics
than functional daily living skills
»Use academic lessons adapted to student
abilities and needs
»Highly structured classrooms
»Motivated staff
»Desire specialized software in classrooms
»All teachers saw more improvement in the
treatment students’ classroom computer use
since the beginning of this research.
vResults

ØAnalysis
»Descriptive
>Cognitive: Treatment group students had
significantly more improvement in achievement
areas: Press & Hold and Press & Release.
>Behavioral: Treatment group students had
significantly more improvement in behavioral
areas: Gentle with Mouse and Look at Screen.
>Effective:
§Survey verbally administered
§Tendency to agree with questions appears real
based on tone of voice during survey
§Voices changed dramatically when stating
disagreements
>Interview: Classroom teachers noticed skills
beginning to generalize to class computers.
vResults

ØImportant Observations
»One Treatment Group student had gains of 1 to
2 levels despite high absenteeism.
»No Control Group students had high
absenteeism.
»Researcher absences evenly effected both
groups.
»Treatment Group students appeared to enjoy
class more.
»Treatment Group had more on-task time.
»Treatment Group students reduced more
aggressive and disruptive behaviors.
vDiscussion

ØOutcomes
»Predicted Results
>Hypothesis appears to be validated
>Treatment Group had significantly higher
mouse skills gains than Control Group
>Skills generalize to classroom activities
»Inferential Conclusions
>Limited sample prohibits inferring results to
students outside PS 138 M
>Similar progress in other PS 138 M students
with autism and developmental delays expected
vDiscussion

ØOutcomes
»Unexpected Results
>Overall reduction in inappropriate behaviors in
Treatment Group greater than Control Group
>Varity of teachers’ responses to survey
questions
>Researcher’s insecurity with some students
survey answers (possibly picking smiling face
because they prefer it over the other faces)
vDiscussion
Boardmaker Symbols by Mayer-Johnson, Inc.

ØHypothesis Result
»High probability that data
supports hypothesis (p = .001
comparing Control & Treatment
total improvement mean
averages)
vConclusion

ØImplementation
»With other students in my school
>Share results with administration and colleagues
>Train staff in using adaptive software
>Write grants to obtain more adaptive software
vConclusions

ØDissemination
»To other schools in my district
>Share results with Manhattan’s District 75
Technology Coach
>Post summary in District 75’s Technology Shared
Folder in DOE E-mail
»To additional schools
>Post this presentation on my Web Site:
(old site – discontinued: www.computerplayground.org)
vConclusions

vConclusions
ØPossible Future Improvements
»Fewer researcher absences
>Researcher out of the building twice a month
for meetings, staff development, and illness
»Better paraprofessional training
>Some paraprofessionals do not effectively
work with students
»More classroom follow through
>Some struggling students do not use their
classroom computers

ØDiscoveries
»Researcher learned
>To help struggling mouse users increase their
skills and attentive behaviors
>To develop and implement research
>To analyze results
>To better understand others’ research
»Students learned
>To use computers better
>To like computer class more
>To express their opinions
>To focus better on their work
vConclusions

¯Ashton, T. M. (2001). The application of ABA to technology: The discrete trial
trainer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(1), 41-42.
¯Baxter, A. Q. (1996). Infotech interactive: Increasing student participation
using multimedia. In Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology
Conference. Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 377-383.
¯Carlson, S. L, & White, S. H. (1998). The effectiveness of a computer program
in helping kindergarten students learn the concepts of left and right. Journal
of Computing in Childhood Education, 9(2), 133-47.
¯Dissinger, F. K. (2003). Core curriculum in assistive technology: In-service for
special educators and therapists. Journal of Special Education Technology,
18(2), 35-45.
¯Germann, C., Broida, Kaufman, J., Broida, J.M., & Thompson, K. (2001).
Improving access using simulations of community resources. In EN-MEDIA
2001 World Conference. Tampere, Finland, 576-581.
¯Hasselbring, T. S. (2001). A possible future of special education technology.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(4), 15-21. :
¯Hetzroni, O. E., & Shalem, U. (2005). From logos to orthographic symbols: A
multilevel fading computer program for teaching nonverbal children with
autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20(4), 201-212.
¯Hobbs, T., Bruch, L., Sanko, J., & Astolff, C. (2001). Friendship on the inclusive
electronic playground. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(6), 46-51.
vReferences

④Hutinger, P. L. (1998). Technology assessment software package: Final report
(PR # H133G40141). Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research.
④Johnston, S. S. (2003). Making the most of single switch technology: A primer.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 47-50.
④Kelly, S., Green, G., Sidman, M. (1998). Visual identity matching and auditory-
visual matching: A procedural note. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
31(2), 237-43.
④Kimball, J. W., Kinney, E. M., Taylor, B. A., & Stromer, R. (2003). Lights,
camera, action! Using engaging computer-cued activity schedules. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 36(1), 40-45.
④Lane, A., & Ziviani, J. (1997). The suitability of the mouse for children's use: A
review of the literature. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 8(2-3),
227-45.
④Langone, J., Clees, T. J., Rieber, L., & Matzko, M. (2003). The future of
computer-based interactive technology for teaching individuals with
moderate to severe disabilities: Issues relating to research and practice.
Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(1), 5-16.
④Lau, C. (2000). I learned how to take turns. Teaching Exceptional Children,
32(4), 8-13.
④Liu, M. (1996). An exploratory study of how pre-kindergarten children use the
interactive multimedia technology: Implications for multimedia software
design. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7(1-2), 71-92.
vReferences

④Pugliese, M. (2000). Stages: A framework for alternate assessment. Closing the
Gap, February/March, 2000.
④Pugliese, M. (2001). Stages: An alternate curriculum and assessment
philosophy. Special Education Technology Practice, 3(4), 17-26.
④Pugliese, M. (2002a). Stages: Software solutions for special needs, second
edition. Boston, MA: Assistive Technology, Inc.
④Pugliese, M. (2002b). Using stages to create meaningful and effective alternate
assessment portfolios. Special Education Technology Practice, 4(4).
④Pugliese, M. (2003). Stages: Alternate assessment solutions that save you time
& money and provide accountability (2003). Dedham, MA: Assistive
Technology, Inc. Retrieve d November 1, 2006 from:
http://www.assistivetech.com/stages_pdfs/StagesAdminhandout.pdf
④Romeo, G., Edwards, S., McNamara, S., Walker, I., & Ziguras (2003). Touching
the screen: Issues related to the use of touchscreen technology in early
childhood education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 329-39.
④Wehmeyer, M. L., Smith, S. J., Palmer, S. B., & Davis, D. K. (2004). Technology
use by students with intellectual disabilities: An overview. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 19(4), 7-22.
vReferences

Dr. Slotnick, NYIT; Carl Schwartz, my husband;
ALL of my classmates and my family
Your assistance and encouragement is highly appreciated!